Canon macro lens recommendations - Page 4

Thread: Canon macro lens recommendations

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 31 to 36 of 36
  1. #31
    Editor Dimer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    1,753

    Re: Canon macro lens recommendations

    I've got an EF 100mm 2.8 on loan and here is my first watch shot with it (I'm quite pleased with the result :)):

    - IWC Ingenieur Automatic IW3227-01
    - Omega Speedmaster Mitsukoshi
    - Casio G-Shock G8900DGK-7 DGK
    - Casio G-Shock GW-7900RD-4JF

    Shortlist
    - Panerai Radiomir 1940 PAM512

  2. #32
    Member hydrocarbon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,846

    Re: Canon macro lens recommendations

    Quote Originally Posted by shortpballer View Post
    I am a professional photographer. I agree about the tamron 90mm. It can be had used for around 250. I've owned one before. Noisy as hell, but SHARP!
    I've never seen the term "noisy" used to describe a lens. What exactly do you mean by that?

  3. #33
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    6

    Re: Canon macro lens recommendations

    he meant that the autofocus motor inside the lens is not "silent"

    i, too hate the sound those tiny plastic gears make inside my sigma 70mm f/2.8 macro, but the tack sharp images make it all worthwhile

  4. Remove Advertisements
    WatchUSeek.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #34
    Member hydrocarbon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,846

    Re: Canon macro lens recommendations

    Quote Originally Posted by Janno View Post
    he meant that the autofocus motor inside the lens is not "silent"

    i, too hate the sound those tiny plastic gears make inside my sigma 70mm f/2.8 macro, but the tack sharp images make it all worthwhile
    Ah, yes. It shouldn't be much of a problem for macro use, since you should be focusing manually under those circumstances anyway.

  6. #35
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    388

    Re: Canon macro lens recommendations

    Quote Originally Posted by hydrocarbon View Post
    Ah, yes. It shouldn't be much of a problem for macro use, since you should be focusing manually under those circumstances anyway.
    Under many (not all) macro situations I could see wanting to go manual, but for non-macro usage I would rely on the AF. So far, the Sigma motors are quite annoying, I almost want to go manual just I don't have to listen to them. My canon lenses are whisper quite by comparison.

  7. #36
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    388

    Re: Canon macro lens recommendations

    Over the last couple of days I've been playing with the new Sigma 105mm Macro lens, and a set of Opteka tubes I have mated to my Canon 28-105mm zoom lens. Following are some comparisons and some samples from each. Unless otherwise stated, the Sigma image appears first, followed by the Canon with the extension tubes.

    Sigma

    Canon + 21mm tube



    Sigma

    Canon + 21mm tube



    Sigma

    Canon + 21mm tube



    Sigma

    Canon + 21mm tube


    Sigma

    Canon + 21mm tube


    Now, this next set of shots are to demonstrate the challenges when you work with an extension tube. First is the Sigma at 105mm.


    Now, the Canon 28-105 with the 21mm extension tube.


    As you can see, only half the sign fits into the image. So, now here is the same sign with no tubes, just the Canon at 105mm.


    -------------------------------------------------------------
    Alright, now some photos just from the Sigma 105mm








    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    And here are some pictures from the Canon 28-105mm with 21mm extension tube








    -----------------------------------------------------------------

    This was an interesting and fun exercise for me. The thing that cannot be derived from the pictures is the difference in working distance. The Sigma really gives you a lot more room to work from, and frankly, it is more versatile for the length it is limited to. However, for much less money a set of tubes can add a lot more capability to an existing lens, and the picture quality is not too bad, very comparable.

    In the final analysis, I will most likely return the tubes, and keep the Sigma. Not because the Sigma makes the tubes a moot point, but because I don't think the $80 EF tubes are any better than the $20 non-EF tubes. In all my tests, I could not get the EF to focus at all, it hunts endlessly, no matter what distance I tried, so I may as well save $60 and get non-EF tubes.
    Last edited by solowatch; September 18th, 2010 at 19:53.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •